Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!prs
From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Philip Stephens)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Life imitates art? (Genetic Experiments/Ape-men)
Message-ID: <1049@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-May-87 21:10:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.1049
Posted: Wed May 20 21:10:35 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 09:11:17 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP>
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens)
Distribution: world
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 77
Xref: mnetor sci.research:87 sci.med:2118 talk.rumors:794 misc.headlines:507

In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes:
->
->      ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED
->
->      by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987)

[etc... other inclusions below may not be in original order, but unmodified]


->     Church leaders recalled that the  Vatican  only  a  few
->weeks ago had condemned genetic experimentation.

Could this be the reason for the timing of the announcement?  And the 
location?  Not that I smell a rat or anything....   8-)

Especially with the predictable reactions:

->     "I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such
->experiments?  To create an army of slaves?"


->     The idea of an army of apeman slaves cleaning  streets,
->placing nuts and bolts on assembly line products, or waiting
->in cages to have their vital organs cut out came as a  shock
->to clergy and scientists.

Expressed that way, I admit I find it repugnant.  I don't have any
moral absolutes on this issue, but I think we'd (the world, not the
net) better hash out some compromise guidelines, since *some form* 
of this is likely to become possible, whether it has been done already 
as asserted or not.

As several (many?) SF books and stories have suggested, this might
be an attractive option, (in the sense that it appears to offer
"natural slaves" w/o any humans being the slaves); most such tales
that I remember tend to be cautionary tales.  And rightly so.

But I am more afraid of over-reaction than of enthusiastic implementation.
If I thought the latter were likely, I would argue -possibly even "rail"-
against it.  But the more likely result is enthusiastic legislation
against "tampering with God's plan" etc.  How likely I don't know, but
more likely to actually pass the legislatures of various countries.

->     "The idea is bestial  and  repugnant,"  commented  Rita
->Levi Montalcini, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Physics.
->
->     "Any such initiative must be  blocked  at  once,"  said
->Prof.  Arturo Falaschi, director of the Genetic Institute at
->Pavia University.

->     "I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such
->experiments?  To create an army of slaves?"

->     What worried many  genetic  researchers  was  that  any
->adverse  publicity  could  slow  experiments  on the cure of
->hereditary illnesses and genetic defects with new  selective
->fertilization methods.

I agree with these researchers.  I'm not sure what restrictions
should be put on them -probably *some* kind of guidelines, anyway-
but surely we must not allow a stapede of excessive restrictions to
stop research that, in addition to what is mentioned here, may even
lead to methods for replacing defective genes *in living bodies*
(if this ever happens, it will be more revolutionary than pennicillin,
although possibly not as radical as the "gene parlors" of science
fiction).

Well, I've said more than enough.  I open the floor to further debate
(no, I didn't mean the trap door, Igor!  Help our guests back into
the room, and apologize nicely.  And after you do that, get back in
your cage.  Honestly, you just can't grow good help anymore!)

	- Phil		prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)     
	or:	(hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra)oliveb!oliven!prs 

Mail welcome, but I usually can only E-mail *easily* via readnews, rn, vn etc.
so don't always expect a reply.